nuclear power after fukushima · a. glaser, nuclear power after fukushima, feem, may 2012 nuclear...

Revision 2

Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiVenice, May 31, 2012

Nuclear Power After FukushimaWhere is it Heading?

Alexander GlaserDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineeringand Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International AffairsPrinceton University

A. Glaser, Nuclear Power After Fukushima, FEEM, May 2012

Nuclear Power: Years of BoredomInterrupted by Moments of Sheer Terror?

2

Three Mile Island

Chernobyl

Low estimate based on the age of reactors operating today, IAEA Power Reactor Information System (actual value for 2010 closer to 14,000 reactor years)



2

Three Mile Island

Chernobyl

Fukushima




2

Three Mile Island

Chernobyl

Fukushima


ForsmarkSweden, INES 2

TokaiJapan, fuel preparation plant

Davis BesseUSA, INES 3

Accidents with local or wider consequencesLevels 4 and higher on International Nuclear Event Scale (INES)

Incidents (selected)Levels 3 and lower on INES

Several additional accidents occurred prior to 1960including the Windscale (1957), Mayak (1957),and Simi Valley (1959) accidents

Fukushima-Daiichi PlantSource: TEPCO, undated

12

34

56

AST/MAE/PHY 309 - Princeton University - Lecture 1 - February 3, 2009 4

March 14, 2011 - DigitalGlobe

Watershed Moment or Storm in a Teacup?International Responses To Fukushima


In Germany, the Fukushima Accidents Overnight Consolidated Support for Nuclear Phaseout

6

Top: www.presseportal.de/pm/6694/2022635/ard_das_ersteLeft: Spiegel Cover from March 14, 2011: The End of the Atomic Era

86% support nuclear phaseout by 2020 (Polling data from April 4–5, 2011)

By when should Germany phaseout nuclear power?

By 2040

By 2020

ASAP

http://www.presseportal.de/pm/6694/2022635/ard_das_erste

http://www.presseportal.de/pm/6694/2022635/ard_das_erste


Germany’s Electricity Imports/Exports

7

Imports

Exports

Post-FukushimaPeriod

Net exports 2010: Net exports 2011:

17.7 TWh5.0 TWh

Charlotte Loreck, Atomausstieg in Deutschland, Institute of Applied Technology, Darmstadt, March 2012

The Impact of Post-Fukushima Shutdowns is Visible but not Dramatic


Germany’s GHG Emissions Have Not SpikedDespite the Shutdown of Eight Reactors in March 2011

8

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

[Million tons CO2eq per year]

Kyoto Budget (974 Mt CO2eq/yr)21% reduction vs 1990, 2008–2012 average

1246

1039998 999 977 976

912 937 917

“Weniger Treibhausgase mit weniger Atomenergie,” Press Release, 17/2012, Umweltbundesamt, April 12, 2012See also European Central Data Reposoitory, cdr.eionet.europa.eu/de/eu/ghgmm/envtw7blw


The International Response to the Fukushima Accidents Has Been Very Uneven

9

Consolidating a national consensus on phaseout of nuclear power• Immediate shutdown of eight oldest (out of a fleet of seventeen) reactors

• Complete phaseout by 2022

Germany



9



Germany

Fundamental review of energy policy underway• As of early May 2012, all 54 reactors shut down; several units are unlikely to come back online

• Strong public support for significantly reduced role of nuclear power in the future

Japan



9



Germany

Fundamental review of energy policy underway• As of early May 2012, all 54 reactors shut down; several units are unlikely to come back online

• Strong public support for significantly reduced role of nuclear power in the future

Japan

New government considers significant adjustments to French energy policy• Planned reduction of nuclear electricity generation from almost 80% down to 50% by 2025–2030

• Major life-extension program underway: EUR 40 billion plus EUR 10 billion post Fukushima

France



10

Reconsidering a new or more important role of nuclear power• Mostly relevant for non-committed “newcomer” countries

• Also includes countries with existing small programs (Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands, ...)

several



10



several

Ambitious expansion plans largely unaffected• Safety review of all current plants; possible new licensing requirements for future plants

• Target for 2020: add 35–45 GW to existing 12 GW (Share of nuclear electricity in 2011: 1.85%)

China



10



several

Continued commitment to nuclear powerbut only few new construction projects moving forward despite government supportUSA

Ambitious expansion plans largely unaffected• Safety review of all current plants; possible new licensing requirements for future plants

• Target for 2020: add 35–45 GW to existing 12 GW (Share of nuclear electricity in 2011: 1.85%)

China


United States : The Market is Deciding

11

2 x Westinghouse AP-1000, 2200 MWe, expected for 2016 and 2017Combined Construction and Operating License issued in February 2012$14 billion investment; $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees

Most proposed construction projects have stalledsome before and some after the Fukushima Accidents

Vogtle-3 and -4 Project (Waynesboro, GA) moving forward

Federal Loan Guaranteesas part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, up to $18.5 billionObama Administration has sought to increase amount to $54.5 billion


United States : The Market is Deciding

11

John Rowe, Former CEO Exelon, March 29, 2012quoted in www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes

Let me state unequivocally that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like;

Having said that, let me also state unequivocally that new ones don’t make any sense right now.

“

”

2 x Westinghouse AP-1000, 2200 MWe, expected for 2016 and 2017Combined Construction and Operating License issued in February 2012$14 billion investment; $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees

Most proposed construction projects have stalledsome before and some after the Fukushima Accidents

Vogtle-3 and -4 Project (Waynesboro, GA) moving forward

Federal Loan Guaranteesas part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, up to $18.5 billionObama Administration has sought to increase amount to $54.5 billion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/

Looking Forward

Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, 2012436 operational reactors (8 less than 12 months ago) in 31 countries provide about 13% of global electricity

More than 10 GWe installed

Less than 10 GWe installed

3

2

2

104

18

50–414+2

6

22

164–10Europe

20

Source: IAEA PRISLast update: May 28, 2012

21+2

32+1

0+1


The Existing Fleet of Power Reactors is Aging

14

United StatesFranceJapan

RussiaSouth Korea

IndiaCanada

United KingdomChina

UkraineSweden

GermanySpain

BelgiumTaiwan

Czech RepublicSwitzerland

Slovak RepublicFinland

HungaryALL OTHERS

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1/11

4/211

3

2/16

9/8

40 6458

4379 24

23

16 26

73 17

4 6

1/71/66/2

63/22

1

4

15 1/2

3 16

444

Operating, nearing 40-year life (75)Operating, first criticality after 1975 (361)Under construction (62)

Destroyed in accidents (6)Shutdown in response to accidents (8)*

*Minimum numberSource: IAEA Power Reactor Information System

Last revision: May 2012

(20-year life-extensions have already been granted for most U.S. reactors)

(as of early May 2012, all reactors shut down)

2/15


Construction Starts By Year

15

Source: Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), International Atomic Energy Agency, http://pris.iaea.org/public/Information retrieved: May 24, 2012

1 Unitin Russia

http://pris.iaea.org/public/

http://pris.iaea.org/public/


Many Energy Scenarios (Still) Envision anEarly Expansion of Nuclear Power

16

0

25

50

75

100

2010–2015 2015–2020 2020–2025 2025–2030 2030–2035 2035–2040 2040–2045 2045–2050 2050–2055 2055–2060

GCAM3 Reference Scenario GCAM 3 Policy Scenario (450 ppm w/os)

11 GWin 5 years

28 GWin 5 years

94 GWin 5 years

126 GWin 5 years

208 GWin 5 years

211 GWin 5 years

201 GWin 5 years

247 GWin 5 years

372 GWin 5 years

415 GWin 5 years

Tota

l nuc

lear

cap

acity

add

ed a

nnua

lly [G

W/y

r] Almost 2000 GW installed by 2060Increases to more than 5000 GW by 2100


Many Energy Scenarios (Still) Envision anEarly Expansion of Nuclear Power

16

0

25

50

75

100

2010–2015 2015–2020 2020–2025 2025–2030 2030–2035 2035–2040 2040–2045 2045–2050 2050–2055 2055–2060

GCAM3 Reference Scenario GCAM 3 Policy Scenario (450 ppm w/os)

11 GWin 5 years

28 GWin 5 years

94 GWin 5 years

126 GWin 5 years

208 GWin 5 years

211 GWin 5 years

201 GWin 5 years

247 GWin 5 years

372 GWin 5 years

415 GWin 5 years

Tota

l nuc

lear

cap

acity

add

ed a

nnua

lly [G

W/y

r]

Historic maximum(32 GW added in 1984)

This is will be difficult to achieve (China will ultimately “need some help”)

Almost 2000 GW installed by 2060Increases to more than 5000 GW by 2100


Many Energy Scenarios (Still) Envision anEarly and Large Expansion of Nuclear Power

17

GCAM3 Policy Scenario

GCAM3 Reference ScenarioResidual Capacityof Existing Fleet

(without life extensions)

2011 Projections of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency

for 2030 (500–745 MW)

Global nuclear electricity under Policy Scenario (450 ppm w/os): 1910 GWe in 2060 (23% of total) and 5190 GWe in 2095 (34% of total)

Global Uranium Enrichment Capacities, 2010

tSWU/yr Total SWU-production in country/region

(14 operational plants in 10 countries, not including two military plants)

2,000120

120

10,00020,000

26,200

1,500

Global Uranium Enrichment Capacities, 2060

tSWU/yr Total SWU-production in country/region

Based on the requirements for GCAM3 Policy Scenario in 14 World Regions

57,84031,320

19,560

16,440

7,920

17,640

3,120

1,320

10,320

10,560

8,880

5,400

33,240

5,640

Note: 10 tSWU/yr are enoughto make HEU for 2–4 weapons per year

Are New Technologies on the Horizon?The Case of Small Modular Reactors


Why Consider Small Modular Reactors?

21

• Substantially lower investment risks$1 billion vs $10 billion projects; combined with shorter construction times

• Potential nonproliferation benefitsLong-lived cores

• Better suited for electricity markets with low growth ratesModules can be added to existing facilities “on demand”

• Promise of enhanced safety and securityAlmost all designs envision underground siting


Why Consider Small Modular Reactors?

21

In January 2012, DOE announced a 5-year $452 million cost sharing programto support engineering, design certification, and licensing for up to two first-of-a-kind SMR designs

www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=138813

BUT: Ultimately, everything will hinge on the economics

• Substantially lower investment risks$1 billion vs $10 billion projects; combined with shorter construction times

• Potential nonproliferation benefitsLong-lived cores

• Better suited for electricity markets with low growth ratesModules can be added to existing facilities “on demand”

• Promise of enhanced safety and securityAlmost all designs envision underground siting

http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=138813

http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=138813


Could Small Nuclear Reactors Play a Role?

22

• Light-water cooled• 125-750 MWe• Underground construction• 60-year spent fuel storage onsite• Quasi-standard LWR fuelSource: www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

Babcock & Wilcox mPower Concept

Several designs are based on standard light-water reactor technology

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/


Could Small Nuclear Reactors Play a Role?

23

Proposed new deployment options: underground, on barges, underwater

http://en.dcnsgroup.com/energie/civil-nuclear-engineering/flexblue/

Length:Diameter:

Power:Siting:

about 100 m12–15 m50–250 MWeSeafloor mooring at a depth of 60 to 100 ma few kilometers off coast

FlexBlueDCNS (formerly Direction des Constructions Navales, DCN)jointly with Areva, CEA, and EDF




Whenever You Read About a “Stunning” New Reactor

24

It Most Likely is a Fast Neutron Reactor Design

26 Advanced Recycling Centers “are capable of consuming the entire 120,000 tons of SNF. Additionally, they are capable of producing 50,000 MWe and

avoiding the emission of 400,000,000 tons of CO2 every year.”

The design provides “the simplest possible fuel cycle,and it requires only one uranium enrichment plant per planet.”

“The Energy Multiplier Module (EM2) ... turns nuclear waste into energy.”

“The current amount of used nuclear fuel waste in storage at U.S.

nuclear plants is sufficient for 3,000 modules.”

Top: General Atomics, Technical Fact Sheet; Middle: C. Forsberg on Traveling Wave Reactor quoted in Technology Review, March/April 2009; Bottom: GE-Hitachi, ARC/PRISM Fact Sheet


Whenever You Read About a “Stunning” New Reactor

25

Traveling Wave Reactor

It Most Likely is a Fast Neutron Reactor Design

EM2: “Nuclear Waste to Energy”www.ga.com/energy/em2/

www.terrapower.com

http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/

http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/

http://www.terrapower.com

http://www.terrapower.com


Princeton’s “Re-Engineering the Nuclear Future” Project

26

Review and analyze proposed SMR designs and their associated nuclear fuel cyclesResearch supported by extensive neutronics calculations for notional SMR’s


Princeton’s “Re-Engineering the Nuclear Future” Project

26

Review and analyze proposed SMR designs and their associated nuclear fuel cyclesResearch supported by extensive neutronics calculations for notional SMR’s

Examine the implications of a large-scale deployment of this technologywith a particular focus on proliferation risk, nuclear waste generation, and economics

Research will include work with Integrated Assessment Models(while seeking improvements in the characterization of nuclear power in these models)

ExampleNotional Long-lived Small Modular Reactor in Once-through Mode


Fuel Inventory of a Long-lived Small Modular Reactor Operated in a Once-Through Mode

28

MCODE Simulations for Notional Design, 500 MW thermal, 30-year core life, 300 days per year

Plutonium-239

PlutoniumUranium-235

mostly loaded as12%-enriched starter fuel


Resource and Fuel Cycle Requirements

29

500 MW thermal for 30 years (300 days per year; 9,000 effective full power days)

Fuel demand

Uranium requirements(to make fuel)

Enrichment

Plutonium inventoryin spent fuel

Waste volume

Standard LWR(50 MWd/kg)

90 tons(5%-enriched fuel)

1040 tons(reference)

654,000 SWU(reference)

1.1 tons(12 kg per ton of fuel)

90 tons(reference)



29


Fuel demand


Enrichment


Waste volume






90 tons(reference)


1720 tons(65% increase)

1,080,000 SWU(65% increase)



Small Modular LWR(30 MWd/kg)



29


Fuel demand


Enrichment


Waste volume






90 tons(reference)



1,080,000 SWU(65% increase)



Small Modular LWR(30 MWd/kg)

In principle, some long-lived SMR concepts could be attractive for deployment in the 2020–2030 timeframe(but the “temptation” to reprocess the fuel from the used cores might be significant)

20 tons(12%-enriched starter fuel)

570 tons(45% reduction)

430,000 SWU(35% reduction)


40 tons(55% reduction)

SMR TYPE F2(fast spectrum, once-through)

*

*Does not include 20 additional tonsof depleted uranium for blankets


SMR Cost Estimates Are Highly Uncertain

30

Design Company Power Overnight Cost Total Capital Cost

$5,000/kWe $1,800 million



$5,000/kWe 0,$725 million










mPower Babock & Wilcox

NuScale NuScale Power

W-SMR Westinghouse

HI-SMUR Holtec

SMART KAERI

CAREM CNEA

KLT-40S OKBM, Russia

VBER-300 OKBM, Russia

PBMR PBMR Ltd.

HTR-PM Tsinghua

4S Toshiba

HPM Gen4/Hyperion

PRISM GE-Hitachi

2 x 180 MW

12 x 45 MW

225 MW

145 MW

100 MW

025 MW

070 MW

295 MW

165 MW

210 MW

010 MW

025 MW

4 x 310 MW

Data adapted from Jonathan Hinze (Ux Consulting), “SMR Economics & Possible Business Models”2nd Annual Nuclear Energy Insider SMR Conference, Columbia, SC, April 24, 2012

(and are typically higher for the more mature projects)

Where Is Nuclear Power Heading?


Some Concluding Observations

32

Many countries remain committed to nuclear powerbut deployment and role of nuclear power is likely to be more uneven

Germany’s phaseout will be a “game changer”



32



Small may be beautiful ... but it is smallEven under most optimistic assumptions, little generating capacity

based on SMR technologies could be deployed by 2030

Small Modular ReactorsSMR attract significant attention; many innovative features; some prototypes will be built



32



An early large-scale global nuclear expansion has become very unlikelyNew thinking is needed about the potential (smaller) role of nuclear power in energy portfolios

Small may be beautiful ... but it is smallEven under most optimistic assumptions, little generating capacity

based on SMR technologies could be deployed by 2030

Small Modular ReactorsSMR attract significant attention; many innovative features; some prototypes will be built

nuclear power after fukushima · a. glaser, nuclear power after fukushima, feem, may 2012 nuclear...

Documents